The practice of collecting rent between the landlord and the tenant is relevant in determining whether the tenant is a defaulter within the meaning of Section 5(1)(e) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1962.

This revision filed by the plaintiff arises in the following circumstances :

The plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question. The defendant was a tenant thereof at a monthly rental of Rs. 100/-, the tenancy commencing from the 15th day of every English calendar month and ending on the 14th day of the next month. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was very irregular in payment of rent of the said premises. He also made some unauthorised constructions by enclosing the front Verandah of the said premises and by making separate room therein. The plaintiff also alleged that he bona fide required the said premises for his own use and occupation. He therefore served a notice of eviction dt. 7th Sept. 1964 on the defendant requiring him to vacate the said premises on the expiry of 14th Oct. 1964. That notice was served on the defendant on 17th Sept. 1964 but he did not comply with the same. Hence the suit for eviction was filed. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had defaulted in making payment of rent due for the period, 15th Jan. 1964 to 14th Oct. 1964 amounting to Rs. 900/- only. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed eviction of the defendant from the said premises as also a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant denying the various allegations. He alleged that when he came to occupy the premises it was in a bad shape. It was hence agreed between him and the plaintiff that he would be at liberty to suitably fill the land and make construction for his use at his own cost and make necessary improvements in the house. He accordingly made various improvements in the house and sunk a tube well. He, therefore, contended that it was wrong to say that he had made unauthorised constructions. He also denied that the plaintiff bona fide required the said premises for his own occupation inasmuch as the plaintiff has a residential house as well as other houses at Panitola. The plaintiff is a priest by profession and he has "Thakurbari" at Panitola. He has a small stationery shop at Panitola Bazar. The defendant also denied that he was a defaulter within the meaning of S.5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (for short, Assam Act No. II of 1962). The plaintiff used to collect rent very often in lump sum according to his convenience. However, either in the month of March or April, 1964 the plaintiff with a view to make illegal gain demanded enhancement of rent from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- per month and stopped collecting rent. The defendant therefore sent a sum of Rs. 300/- to the plaintiff by money order on account of rent from 15th Jan. 1964, but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. Then he deposited the said rent in the Court of Munsiff, Dibrugarh and stated all the relevant facts in his notice dt. 27th June, 1964 informing him that the rent had been deposited in the Court. Thereafter the defendant sent rent for one month more by money order but that too was refused. The defendant, therefore, deposited the same in the Court as before and since then the rent had been deposited in the Court with due notice to the plaintiff. Both the parties adduced evidence in the case. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced it was held by the trial Court that the defendant was not a defaulter as alleged and was therefore not liable to be evicted on that ground. It was also held that the defendant had not made any unauthorised constructions in the said house and that the plaintiff did not bona fide require the suit premises for his personal use. The suit was, therefore, dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff preferred an appeal from the said decision. The appellate Court below concurring with the trial Court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved filed a second appeal in this Court; subsequently he got the said appeal converted into the instant revision.

3. The sole point urged before me on behalf of the plaintiff-revisionist was th